Jens,
On 2002.05.13 14:58 Jens Owen wrote:
> Jose,
>
> I recommend a full two way merge (DRI->kernel and kernel->DRI). The
> kernel->DRI changes can be submitted directly to our repository for
> testing. The DRI->kernel changes require a patch be submitted to the
> kernel team. If we need two patches (for 2.4 and 2.5) that's okay--but
> we should try to end up with a common driver source for both kernel
> versions in our repository, if at all possible. Posting these patches
> on the DRI site is for the purpose of getting some alpha testing
> exposure and code review before submitting to the kernel team.
>
> Once we have merged sources in both repositories, then David and Alan
> can pick up the latest from our repository.
>
> Getting these fixes out minimizes our need to create patches relative to
> all the verious places the kernel DRM drivers can be found.
I agree entirely with you.
>
> Does this plan cover our needs, or am I overlooking something?
>
Nop, but who will do this? (I can't volunteer as I have no more spare time
until June.)
I would be nice to know what is the current state of affairs? Is it like:
- both 2.4.x 2.5.x linux kernel series have the XFree 4.1.0 DRMs (with
changes by the linux kernel developers to match the rest of the kernel).
- the XFree86 4.2.0 tree has DRM source for early 2.4.x series
- for 2.4.18 changes are required, for which Mike made a patch
- for 2.5.x likewise, for which Micah patched the radeon kernel only
And what is necessary to do is:
- adapt the DRI CVS kernel modules to build in at least three kernel
versions,
- make a patch against the latest 2.4.x and 2.5.x kernels
Is this picture correct?
Jos� Fonseca
_______________________________________________________________
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
